Quote:
Originally Posted by pickpackpockpuck 
Less stuff is better
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/living-with-less-a-lot-less.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

Less stuff is better
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/living-with-less-a-lot-less.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0
I also like the concept of minimalism, but I get frustrated when millionaires begin preaching that "all you need is love" (or 400 square feet). It's an appealing idea, and it's hard to argue against from an ecological standpoint, BUT I'm suspicious of minimalism's supposed status as a panacea for the ills of consumerism. Quite often it seems to be couched in an unacknowledged assumption that you can defer or relocate your sites of consumption. For example, in this article, this gentleman talks about how he spends much of his money on travel, how he likes to throw large dinner parties, etc. Are these just different ways - which are largely inaccessible to people of lower socioeconomic status - in which consumption is instantiated?
I cleaned and organized my bookshelves the other day, and, perversely, it may be the happiest I've been in months. Maybe Mr. Hill feels happier now, because his modes of consumption are not just monetary transactions (buying/selling), but are now also transactions of time, emotional content, etc. ("doing")














![shog[1].gif](http://files.styleforum.net/images/smilies/shog%5B1%5D.gif)

